PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
930 years old. Well, you learn something new every day. And sometimes it's weird shit like that.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Sonny? I know you can't be over 60 man...right?
I'm not posturing; it is a fact that many arguments here have been running on something taken out of context. Just seems that no one is willing to admit they were wrong.
I never said that I believe that Adam might have been Australopithecus nor that I might be content with it. What I said is we don't know because that's not what the bible concentrates on. It simply states that the first human created was a male and was called Adam. It states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." "Man" being the human race.
As to what I think, I'm more inclined to think the bible puts us in the homo genus. Because God did not "evolve" humans from anything else, the relationship that evolution attempts to previous species is not one that I accept nor is it one that has evidence that I find says otherwise.
No, what I was saying is since most regard a "generation" to be give or take 100 years, 9 of them would have passed while Adam was alive. The bible states that Adam was 130 years old when he had Cain and who knows how long after that it was until Cain was working the land. But I see a different question next...
Well since I said I never said that Adam WAS pre homo genus, only said I don't know, should I approach this question differently?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I'm sorry, what is YEC?
Ever heard the saying "not what you say but how you say it?" The perception is the origins of life and how humans came to be are BOTH known as evolution. Everyone here has corrected my media warped mind into knowing that evolution and origins are different and unrelated.
And now understanding that, there are still portions of evolution that I agree with and parts that I don't, namely that there is a relationship from modern humans and any previous genus. To me, it's like forcing pieces of a puzzle to make a case that answers an odd question. And the question itself, did we evolve out of another species, which I regarded as the origins of humans (and how the origins of life itself is somehow from if you start going asking 'what about this one?' so it sure seemed like the origins is part of evolution), does not have an answer.
But then, evolution is not about the origins of humans so, why isn't it accepted? What was it that Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Young Earth Creationist
So the remains of creatures very close to us whose skeletons appear and then fall away when replaced by those of modern man in a different layer of earth ... that's not enough of a hint? It's a pretty good hint.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well I certainly can't be over 900...right?
Sure enough.
Horse shit. This is what you said, granny (yes granny -- since you must be senile):
Unless I'm taking the word "maybe" out of context, this indicates you were at least open to the possibility of a & e being australopithecines. If you weren't, you should have said "Hell, no!", instead of "Maybe". Let's work on keeping our thoughts straight, shall we?
Okay, let's start small. You said you accept "some parts" of evolution, if I'm not taking you out of context. Let's hear exactly what it is you do accept (and when answering, try hard to remember that evolution is not about the origin of life).
Actually, the bible states (and I stated in my previous post) adam was 130 when he had seth (gn 5:3), so -- as I stated in my previous post -- cain must have been working the land before this.
So - do we have it on record that you believe man went from fruit-gathering to agriculture in under 130 years?
Well since you did say that adam could be pre homo genus, you should try really hard to make up your mind before you approach any question.
There are no theists on operating tables.
What Will said.A person whol believes the earth was created in 6 literal days and is 6,000 years old.A Fundametalist.You must be familiar with them.
Because it detracts from god I suppose.Heck,you're the theist,you tell me.A literal 6 day creation does not allow for evolution,as everything was created as it is now,and will always be that way.
Here's a excerpt from my christians education for you:
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
That's no hint, that's a different species. Because chimps look kinda like humans does not make them humans nor does it make them a distant relative. There has been a lot of guess work to make that connection and I simply don't buy it. I've said it before, I relate it to how scientists first worked up the dinosaurs. First time around they got it really wrong. And so far, they haven't gotten it right, other than those things existed on this planet, which is exactly as much as they've gotten right about "human looking" things.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
No, but they do have almost identical DNA to ours. 96 to 99% identical. That doesn't make them a "distant" relative at all. Article on chimp DNA
Maybe you haven't exposed to the sheer weight of the evidence. It's not just a few skulls here and there. Anyway, what makes it such an unreasonable explanation to you?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm familiar with this argument. My response has always been since the DNA is not equivalent, they are not human. Similarities do not explain genetic mutation. And, please correct me if I am wrong, but I have not read or seen any evidence that any mutation has survived as anything other than what would be called a "birth defect." Again, correct me if I am mistaken, however even down to the simplest bacteria, there has not been one case of one bacteria mutating into another. And if something that simple cannot or does not, how would something as far more complex as those previous species mutate? It seems far more speculative than "hints."
Oh, and I've never regarded cross breading as evolution. That's just cross breading (kinda like in dogs).
Please take what I say here as not coming from a biologist or any kind of expert. It is simply my honest opinion of what I know. I'm not claiming to be right, just critical.
Granted but there are no "in betweens" that show any type of jump. "Lucy" is still from what I understand the best proof of the jump from one species to the homo genus. The interesting part to me is while this planet has seen its share of interesting species that have come and gone, it is the human ancestors that never seemed to share in a "they were here but no longer" type of approach. Natural selection if you will. Because we had to come from somewhere, those guys must have been it. Dinos came and went. Some really fantastic sea creatures came and went. Scorpions could very well be related to an ancient fish version (although nothing proves they simply walked out of the ocean one day).
Anyway I guess my point here is what makes it unreasonable is not because it conflicts with my faith but rather because of the assumptions that are taken to make it so. They simply do not seem to fit.
Perhaps I am not a believer in evolution after if evolution is ONLY about how one species becomes another. But I'm certain it is more than just that no?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I do want to make clear that I am not closed to the idea that it could happen or be true. DNA has to date been the best evidence of any sort of link but it is not 100%. From a biblical point of view I could easily say that because God created everything from the Earth, everything would share a kind of "chemical makeup," though even I know that sounds rather reaching.
My being critical of evolution does not mean I reject it however. I still believe that the science that comes from it is of great importance and if you were to ask me about teaching it, I say teach it in schools.
Anyone ever read this Wiki on thestic evolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
I found it more in line with how I approach evolution, especially more in line with the thoughts of the Church of the Nazarene (and no I'm not a member of that denomination), even though I can't say that this is what I follow.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
This is what disgusts me about Xian dogma: Jesus taught that being a sacrifice was the epitome of a good person. Andrea Yates sacrifices herself to "save" her children by killing them before the "age of accountability", therefore giving them a free pass to the Promised Land (something I and the other Atheists will - allegedly - never get).
That is, if people REALLY followed Xinanity, killing children would be the best thing to do.
It's a death cult that has duped people into thinking its about "love". And, in reality, its a tradition in which people - generally good people - warp a horrible idea into something palatable because thats what humans do.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Yeah, I know ... they're ... chimps. Did I miss something? You may want to look up (or talk to a biologist about) the process of speciation. There's a lot more to it than "poof, new species, new name."
Quite wrong. Mutations (certainly changes in DNA) occur every time a couple reproduces. You're thinking of the science fiction version of mutation.
Bacteria that eat Nylon would be a good example. Different innards. It would be like a person who could live off of grass like a cow. You could say that's a person, but ...
That's okay, nobody else does either. That's artificial selection.
Critical is fine, except that it seems like all of your notions of biology are off-base. You're simply misinformed, which is easy to fix. For instance, speciation is actually really interesting if you get a chance to look up the mechanics of it.
No, Lucy just happens to be a really, really old upright-walking homonid skeleton. Reasonably dated at 3 million years old.
This is going to seem dismissive, but it's not: you should really check out what the actual theory behind these things is. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against, to tell you the truth. Are you saying you would only believe in speciation if you could watch it happen in front of you in real time?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'll do some reading on speciation so I can be more informed about what the science is.
I'm really not arguing against anything other than the idea that we mutated from a different species simply does not seem to fit. While there is some "sharing" of DNA when someone procreates, isn't mutation a loss of something either way? For example, if I were writing a computer program and decided to upgrade it (evolve it if you will), if the original has errors those errors would only continue and possibly jack up the whole upgrade itself. At such point, the evolving of the program is no longer possible and a whole new deal would be needed. I would then have to "create" something new. I could share ideas from the previous but the new program could not be called an offshoot of the old. A good example of this is how Windows have evolved over time and the same limitations and errors that continue no matter the version since Win95. MacOS would be an example of how after version 9, it was not continued but rather allowed to go extinct. The new shared much of the same look and feel but the OS itself was quite new. It would be hard to call it an evolved byproduct.
I know that's not really the same thing compared to biology but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make.
As I said before I'm far from being an expert here, but my comment to this thread is that I would not say evolution is a lie. It is the biological portions that still seem more like science fiction.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
It's not necessarily loss or gain, just a change. It gets complicated, since biological systems aren't as predictable as physical systems, and we find out new stuff every day.
That would be because there isn't a significant enough environmental pressure on the program, and the program doesn't self-replicate. If the program self-replicated, and there was a pressure on the program to perform or be destroyed, then you'd have an evolutionary process. I know there are, in fact, programs written that way, but I don't think any operating systems are. It's difficult to say if any dead weight would be trimmed, considering the amount of inactive material in our DNA, but it's an interesting thought.
I can understand that from your point of view the conclusions reached seem far-fetched. That's simply a misunderstanding of what's happening biologically, though. There are tons of examples of upright-walking hominid remains, for instance, after Lucy. The reasonable likelyhood is that we're at one end of that process. I say "reasonable" because we're an upright-walking hominid, such creatures have existed for at least 3 million years, and we're part of nature. If you believe that we're a part of nature, then it's only reasonable to say that a process that develops the rest of the biological creatures develops us. Before Lucy, we don't know. Assumptions aren't really being made, just competing hypotheses. The most likely, in terms of what we already observe to happen all the time, is the one that tends to win.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Believe it or not, it's actually possible to believe in both God and evolution / science. Believing in one doesn't necessarily negate a belief in the other- it's not a contradiction.
Perhaps your post is addressing a particular "type" of Christian, whose mind is as closed as a particular type of atheist.
In my opinion, these people are nothing more than two sides of the exact same coin.
You don't have to look any further than this website to see the diversity / rigidity of opinions and beliefs being expressed by both believers and atheists.
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".
St. Thomas Aquinas
1225 - 1274
Both right and wrong here John
your only slip up was...
"to believe in both God and evolution / science"
it should read
"to believe in both a god and evolution / science"
such a minor grammatical error that could have such disastorous outcomes... ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
Why should I have written "belief in a god" as opposed to what I actually wrote "belief in God"..??
I'm a Christian - I refer to God as God - not Allah and not a god
Just God..!
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".
St. Thomas Aquinas
1225 - 1274
precisely... the reason why it needed to be changed to include all other gods >.>
What Would Kharn Do?
I have no idea what your point is.
I'm a Christian - I refer to God as God. If I were a Muslim responding to your post, I would refer to this "entity" as Allah.
If I were to write a post and say goodbye, would it be necessary to also say sayonara / au revoir / hasta la vista / etc because the word "goodbye" can be said in many different ways by many different people..??!!
In my opinion, we're not talking about different "gods" - we're talking about the same "entity" with just different names attached by different faiths.
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".
St. Thomas Aquinas
1225 - 1274
Thank you for posting. As with razorphreak, I would be curious to see your answers to the questions I posed above.
If you do choose to respond, please also give your assessment of razorphreak's handling of the questions, and whether or not he is the proper "type" of christian. If your require clarification on any of this, please let me know.
Thank you
There are no theists on operating tables.
A fellow Thomist, perhaps? Maybe even a fellow Catholic? Awesome!
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
You're right on the point, yet you can't see it.
A belief in a god other than the Christian god, is not the same thing as saying "goodbye" in several different languages - even from an atheist's perspective. Your opinion that people are talking about the same "entity" with just different names and faiths would probably insult many theists. You speak of "god" on terms that the "details" in their descriptions don't really matter. IF you truly believe in god, these details should matter to you very much. Otherwise, you're believing because its the current fad - you're following everyone else, without regard as to why you're doing it...
Now, having said that, I tend to agree that all gods that were worshiped throughout history could be lumped into the same pot, fueled by mankind's desire to have something omnipotent to help answer the "unanswerable" questions of the time. For some reason though, people forget history, and believe that it doesn't apply to their situation - That they're exempt from that line of thinking. Christianity (or any other modern religion) is no different. 1,000 years from now, it will be studied as we study Greek and Roman mythology now, and people will wonder how the in the world people actually believed that type of stuff.
Don't be so naive to think that mankind has risen so far in that period of time, that current generations would not be susceptible to the same types of superstitions - religion is funny that way - most likely because it tends to exist outside of science. It's the same situation now... just dressed up in different clothes...
I believe in evolution and I believe in God.
I believe that the bible fills in the gaps that science cannot, and that science answers the questions that the bible doens't bother with.
The two can coexist.
Do I believe we have evolved from monkeys? No. And science HAS dissproved that theory.
Do I believe we have evolved from humanoids? Yes. And science has proved that also.
I do not think that proving evolution would impact anyone already a Christian, it would just strengthen our arguments. It would probably just make sceptics more sceptial.
Need a lifegaurd?
Mine walks on water.
The evidence is overwhelming that we share common ancestry with monkeys, indeed all other primates, indeed all othe mammals. Really all the way back. The best evidence for this is now from studies of DNA and RNA and all the processes in which these molecules are involved, more so than the fossil record.
Darwin's ideas were opposed, not so much because they were necessarily incompatible with typical Christian beliefs, but they did remove one big argument for God, by showing how the variety and complexity of life did NOT require special creation or a conscious Designer.
Evolution is incompatible with Biblical literalism, definitely.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Which is to say you believe in compartmentalization.
False. As science progresses, it fills the gaps it currently cannot.
False. The bible makes claims (the origins of the universe, miracles, etc.), which are in direct contradiction to science.
Of course they can, as long as you're deliberately dishonest.
Science has not disproved that theory--because it has never been theorized that we evolved from monkeys. Science has on the other hand proved that we and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.
If by 'humanoids' you mean our hominid ancestors, then smile -- you've scored a point.
I fail to see how evolution strengthens the christian's argument, as it shows we do not need a god to explain how we got here.
If you do in fact think evolution and christianity are compatible, please give your 'theory' about where on the evolutionary timeline free will and sin first made their appearance. I've already posed this question to other christians in this thread, and as you can see, they've done a less than stellar job in answering.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Hi , I am Dheeraj Kumar Verma. I have read the evolution theory. It will make the religion redundant.
Best of luck.
Cheers
So you have yet another belief based on assumption and inadequate examination of the evidence, apart from your belief in God. I see a connection here - you think your intuitive feelings about things are all you need to base your beliefs on.
Fundamentalist and other flavours of Biblical literalists definitely do not accept evolution, they believe that God created every kind of creature as we see them today, IOW no evolution allowed, unless they are all lying to us about it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
... oh this i gotta hear
What Would Kharn Do?
Sure you are.
Good for you.
Redundantly false? Agreed.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I agree with the first reply to this thread... Evolution IS already a fact. So no, christians wouldn't give a crap. Evolution is something that has always been here, but was discovered, much like gravity. Then a theory was built around explaining it, tested and refined and so on... The theory about how evolution works could be disproved, but evolution itself is a fact that we discovered. We may revamp the theory of evolution, but this would only mean we would have found out more about the fact of evolution.
Maybe this is more what I was trying to get at... It seems that many Christians are simply ignorant to the current theory of how evolution works. This ignorance, in turn, causes them to disregard it completely, basing their decision on a false understanding. The Christians that "believe" in evolution are simply cherry-picking bits and pieces from their religion to allow both to coexist. In other words, they either don't fully believe in their faith, and/or they don't fully understand what evolution says is true. From my viewpoint, the two are not compatible - which is what led to my initial question...
Rephrasing it to something more like "If evolution was fully understood; i.e., the mechanics, the chemistry, etc, and was fully scientifically proven as fact, would it cause certain aspects of Christianity (or any other faith for that matter) to be automatically disproven, and ultimately cause "believes" to question their faith?"
As it stands now, there is obviosuly much confusion on the understanding of evolution in the general public (the average church-goers for instance). This is where you get ignorant statements like "Where's the croco-duck?" and "We didn't evolve from no monkeys!"
Sadly, this is not the fault of evolution theory, but how it is taught in schools, and how some religious parents try explaining it to their kids at an early age - thereby muddying the waters before it is even properly introduced to them by someone who really understands it. I'm sure I posted the video of these young-earth-creationists taking their kids to a science museum, explaining (incorrectly) how each exhibit was "wrong"? Here it is again, just in case anyone missed it. It makes me sick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8AeiAamjY
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
This is very true. It seems that it is becoming more and more of a fight to keep good science in public schools, as these fundamentalists argue that both "intelligent design" and evolution be presented to the students. They treat science like it's a poison to their faith. In reality, it is the antidote.
I'm disappointed that razorphreak raptured away before answering my last post to him; however, there's a recent crop of theists who seem to think they've got it figured out. I invite them to try their logic in this thread.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I'm not entirely sure why so many people think religion exists outside of science. I know lots of people - myself included - who believe that both religion and science can coexist quite well together.
I'm not sure why it has to be an either / or relationship.
As the thread title indicates, this is specifically about whether christianity and evolutionary theory can coexist.
I argue that with honest consideration, they cannot. For those christians who are biblical literalists, the incompatibility is plain to see (the genesis story is patently false in light of evolution). For those that are not literalists, problems remain. The apologist needs to explain what christianity defines as "man", whether only Homo sapiens, or all hominids, or all australopithecines or whatever. The apologist must further explain when and how did "man's sinful nature", and souls emerge, such that his immediate evolutionary forbears did not have them.
If you are taking the christian evolutionist stance, feel free to respond, as there will be many other questions as we proceed.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the two coexisting at all.
If an individual wants to take the Bible literally- word for word - that's their perogative. Personally, I don't adhere to that mindset. i believe that the Bible reader has to decide for him/her self, which sections are designed to make a point and which sections are grounded in fact.
I don't believe, for example, that God and Satan stood on the sidelines debating while poor Job suffered all of these terrible things.
But I do believe, for example, that a man named Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God, lived and was crucified.
As for your other questions, of course, problems remain for the theists. I certainly can't answer your questions i.e.when did "man's sinful nature / when did souls emerge". I doubt (let me rephrase that I KNOW) that there's a person on the planet who could answer those questions with "surgical precision".
Why do you think that an important / essentail ingredient of a theist's mindset is based on faith..?
Let me put it another way - I have a mother. I love my mother, but if somebody asked me to "prove" it, I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. So if I can't "prove" something that is so fundamentally and naturally understood - so commonplace in the world in 2008 - millions and millions of people have mothers, who they profess to love, then how could anybody possibly "prove" / provide definitive answers to the questions you've raised.
If you think I'm wrong, then think about somebody you love and then prove to me in this forum that you love that person.
Good luck.
oops, misread.
I can't prove I love my wife on this forum, but I can prove definitively that I love her.
The emotion "love" causes specific and measurable brain activity, as well as secondary responses, such as eye dilation and differences in heart rate. It would be trivial for me to go to a clinic that studies emotions and their associated physical responses.
But, as love is a subjective experience, the difference in proving that you "love" somebody is an entirely different proposition than attempting to indicate that your subjective feelings in any way prove or disprove the existence of an object. If faith were the same proposition as love, then all you are proving is that you are enamoured of a particular mythos, which may or may not have a basis in reality.
Not that I would doubt your faith any more than I would doubt your love for your mother. Your word is good enough for me. It's the object of your faith that I question. Just as I might question whether or not your mom deserves your love, if she had abused you terriblyl as a child.
This is very similar to a thread Topher started recently, concerning Gould's concept of non-overlapping mysteria. If you haven't found that yet, I highly recommend it as a good place for discussion of this very topic.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Which serves to indicate that you are not employing your critical thinking skills.
It certainly is -- but they would be 100% wrong.
You seem to imply it is up to each individual what they want to consider the facts. Science doesn't work that way. The facts are there to be discovered -- not subjectively decided.
"And straight out of left field..."
You inability to answer those questions, and your lack of concern for answering those questions indicates your willingness to remain ignorant of the matter. You are able to let evolution and christianity coexist in your mind since you choose not to address the unavoidable conflicts in holding such a view.
Because the theist cannot provide evidence for his beliefs. Obviously faith is the essential ingredient.
Why do you think evolutionary theory is not based on faith?
It warms my heart to know you love your mother -- but I'm not sure what immediate relevance proving "love" has to do with the conflict between evolution and christianity.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Two qualified physicians listen to a patient describe the exact same symptoms and come up with two different diagnosis' and treatments.
The last time I looked, medicine is based on science, isn't it...?? So why does the above situation happen..??
I'm a theist and I can provide plenty of evidence for my beliefs. But I wouldn't waste my time - or yours - outlining my reasons because in the end, it eventually comes down to faith - the belief in something that can't be proven.
There are plenty of very intelligent people who are theists and plenty of very intelligent people who are atheists.
You'll just have to take my word on "faith" that I love my mother.
Disease is an extraordinarily complex situation. Not only is the human body tremendously complex, it varies from person to person. Secondly, pathogens are endlessly varied and often produce similar symptoms.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Since you've made no effort to qualify this little hypothetical, I do not perceive what relevance it has to do with the present topic. Should I speculate, you imply that if two physicians can produce to different diagnoses, it is likewise permissible for christianity and evolution to conflict. However, if the physicians' diagnoses are incompatible, at least one of them must be wrong. So also with christianity and evolution; if a point of conflict cannot be resolved, one must be in error. Of course, the error lies with christianity.
Which is to say you don't have evidence for your beliefs. If you still need faith in the end, then your "evidence" is for naught.
Yet again, I do not perceive what immediate relevance this has to the topic. If you have to default to faith in order to let christianity and evolution coexist in your mind, you are not thinking logically.
So one of those groups of "very intelligent people" must be wrong. Which can it be? I'm thinking it's the group which embraces faith over evidence.
Pardon me. If you in fact hold that christianity and evolution are compatible, you can address the questions I have already asked. Though as you've already stated, you are content to plead ignorance and patch over the inconsistencies with faith. Feel free to take on the questions should you develop a newfound interest in logical consistency. If you've nothing more to offer than bloviations about the health of your maternal relationship, you can do that elsewhere.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Alright - provide me with a credible link that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that love can be proven scientifically.
Ask and ye shall recieve.
Oh, and 'love' for your mother is, contrary to popular phrasing, not actually love. It's a psychological condition known as imprinting.
I enjoy giving 3 fer 1s.
myson, the hung-up we're having is that you profess that religion and science can walk hand in hand - yet one is based strictly on faith, the other on hard facts and data. This, well, does not compute.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Nigel The Bold:
Tell me how you could PROVE definitively that you love your wife - I'd love to know.
And the specific and measureable brain activity that you refer to - as well as the secondary responses i.e. eye dilation / differences in heart rate, you're actually saying that a "machine" can distinguish between the LUST, for example, that an individual may be feeling versus love. You're actually saying that a machine can actually scientifically pinpoint that what somebody is feeling is love versus something else.
Again, I would love to see a link to a credible site that addresses this magical machine.
Jill:
You're right - I don't know how to "prove" that I love somebody - perhaps you can enlighten me. Prove to me that you love somebody - anybody...!!!
So you're saying that nobody on the planet actually loves their mother - they're simply imprinted.
How about fathers - or brothers or sisters - or sons and daughters - or friends ..??
Does imprinting also apply to these types of people as well..??
If so, then there is no such thing as love - right..??
It's nothing more than imprinting..??!!
You're wrong - it's not based on ENTIRELY on faith.
Two of the posters claimed that "love" could be proven scientifically. I threw out a very simple request - provide me with a credible link that affirms their statement / belief.
But instead I get some "psycho babble" about imprinting.
Funny stuff..!
I provided you with a straightforward, topic-relevant question - provide me with a topic-relevant response.
No more digressions about your Norman Bates identity (talk about psycho babble!)
EDIT: Sorry, went a little too far.
There are no theists on operating tables.